Is might right?

The law on the use of weapons by law enforcement officers in necessary situations was passed in 1373 (1994) and was drafted in the prevailing conditions after the end of the eight-year war. It seems that the aim of this law was to prevent shooting at civilians and reduce the use of weapons. This law only applies to armed officers of the law enforcement forces.

In Article 1, it is clearly stated that the armed forces subject to this law are authorized to carry and use weapons in order to establish order and security, prevent the escape of suspects or criminals, or in the capacity of judicial officers, to inspect, investigate, and uncover crimes and enforce judicial orders or other assigned missions. The title of the law also clearly indicates that the officers, except in necessary cases, do not have the right to use weapons, which is also specified in ten clauses in Article 3; including: 1- for self-defense against someone who attacks the officers with a cold or hot weapon, 2- for self-defense against multiple individuals who attack without weapons, but the situation is such that self-defense is not possible without using a weapon, 3- to repel an attack on individuals whose lives are in danger, 4- to arrest a thief or highway robber, 5- to prevent the escape of a prisoner, 6- to protect military sites

The aforementioned provision, while listing the ten cases in paragraph 1, declares the previous warning necessary and considers the use of weapons permissible in the event of a legitimate mission, and prohibits officers from using weapons in cases other than having a legitimate mission and in the event of one of the above cases. According to this law, the use of weapons is conditional upon having a mission.

The 3 verses of this law state that armed officials are only allowed to use weapons in situations where there is no other solution and if possible, they must follow the following guidelines: a) use aerial shooting, b) shoot at the lower body, c) shoot at the upper body. The explicit and clear purpose of this law is to limit the use of weapons by officials so that they do not use their weapons outside of their assigned tasks and while on leave. However, it has been observed that even in cases where an official is on leave and not on a mission, they have used their weapons and caused the death of a civilian, without being pursued or punished. This is while if an official is allowed to use their weapon in any situation, it will only result in the use of weapons in conflicts and personal animosity, rather than for legitimate purposes. Weapons are dangerous tools that are only meant to be used for the purposes listed in Article 1 and in accordance with the execution of judicial

In the above law, only members of the armed forces are subject to the mentioned law, including the army, the Revolutionary Guards, and the law enforcement command. No other person or group can be considered subject to it. However, in a recent bill submitted by the government to amend the mentioned law, by changing the title, it has clearly changed the individuals under its jurisdiction and in the new amendment, only members of the armed forces are not subject to the law and it intends to include all armed personnel under its jurisdiction; even the phrase “members of the armed forces” has been removed from the title of the law.

The expectation was that in order to respect the lives of citizens and prevent their killing with government weapons, which were intended to be handed over to law enforcement officers for the purpose of maintaining order in society and protecting the lives of people, the legislature would take steps towards reducing the use of weapons and creating limitations for weapon users, rather than taking steps towards increasing the use of weapons by expanding the scope of the law.

Undoubtedly, the increase in the number of individuals covered by the law and the authorized use of weapons will lead to an increase in cases of murder and injury by the armed forces; especially since turning armed forces into armed officers will result in anyone who receives a weapon from one of the organizations being subject to the protections of this law. It should not be overlooked that the title of armed officers is very broad and encompasses an unlimited number of individuals in society.

In addition, the members of the armed forces have specific uniforms, titles, and positions that are easily recognizable by the community as belonging to the armed forces. However, armed personnel do not have any signs or indications of being armed, and the lack of such signs can confuse the community. How can we expect people to know whether or not someone is a member of the armed forces and armed without any signs or a military uniform? Surely, in cases where a person does not have any signs indicating their affiliation with the armed forces, they do not have the right to receive the legal benefits reserved for armed forces personnel.

In the mentioned amendment, article 1 has undergone fundamental changes and, in addition to changing “officers of the armed forces subject to this law” to “armed forces and individuals authorized to use weapons according to laws and regulations”, it has also removed the objectives stated in article 1. According to the amendment, officers can use weapons in any situation, even without a mission, to establish order and security, prevent the escape of suspects or criminals, and discover crimes and enforce judicial orders. The main objective is no longer the mission itself, but rather the transformation of the mission into any mission – whether it be officers of the armed forces or armed officers – and in any situation, even during leave or absence of a mission.

Weapon is a dangerous and lethal tool, and its aimless and purposeless use can cause destructive consequences. Additional provision 2 to Article 1 of the above law supports individuals who have been armed by legal authorities for self-defense, in accordance with Article 156 of the Islamic Penal Code, approved on 1/2/1392, and its provisions.

Article 156 mentions the conditions for legitimate defense as a justifiable factor in a crime, with the most important element being the proportionality of the attack to the defense. This provision allows armed individuals who possess weapons for self-defense to claim legitimate defense if they use their weapons to repel an attack. This statement implies that these individuals are always in a position of legitimate defense, which contradicts this interpretation.

“Intellectually and logically, if an armed individual in the position of protecting their own life, with respect to the principles and fundamentals of just defense of life, property, honor, or freedom of themselves or others against any type of invasion or imminent danger, follows the stages of defensive behavior that can be considered just defense, there is no need to mention this matter or grant special privileges to the armed individual in the aforementioned law. This is because if the same armed individual follows the principles of just defense, they can easily exempt themselves from punishment by referring to Article 156 and its conditions. Unfortunately, the second clause states that if an armed officer is subjected to any type of attack – even physical or simple – they can use a weapon without considering the proportionality of defense and the law will support them and they will be immune from punishment. Therefore, being armed will lead to the conclusion that attacking an armed individual puts them in a state of just defense. In other words, any type of defense

Article 3 has also been revised to expand the permissible use of weapons and shooting. It has been increased from ten to eleven clauses. In addition, many clauses have been developed; for example, current clause 4 allows the use of weapons to arrest a thief, a highway robber, or someone who is attempting to commit assassination, destruction, or explosion and is fleeing. However, the proposed amendment is as follows:

“For the arrest of thieves, bandits, hostage-takers, kidnappers, bullies or power-holders with cold or hot weapons, drug or weapon smugglers, murderers, those who engage in espionage, assassination, destruction or explosion, and in all cases subject to this clause, whether they are on the run or engage in confrontation.”

Regardless of the fact that it is not clear how an armed officer can determine and verify that the person they are shooting at is a thief, bandit, kidnapper, murderer, drug trafficker, or any other title, with this new law, the majority of criminals or suspects are at risk of being killed before any legal proceedings take place. This essentially puts the armed officer in the position of judge and executioner, with a heavy sentence that puts the lives of citizens in danger.

In cases where smugglers or residents of border areas are passing through those areas and are shot at, usually the police and border guards, based on Article 9 which states “to prevent and confront individuals who intend to enter and exit through unauthorized borders and do not pay attention to the warnings of border guards”, consider themselves exempt from prosecution and the shooting is deemed in accordance with the law and courts refrain from imposing punishment; with the strange argument that these individuals have put themselves in danger by passing through areas near the border and that the new amendment only considers the intention of entering and exiting as a justification for shooting and they should take the initiative to leave. Furthermore, the border guards have been changed to border guards who will be authorized to use weapons solely for the purpose of guarding the border.

The deletion of clauses 2 and 2 precisely indicates the permissibility of armed individuals to use weapons outside of their assigned duties, and clearly states that simply handing over a weapon grants permission for its use both within and outside of assigned duties.

Although paragraph 3 of article 3 regarding the hierarchy of shooting has not been removed, according to the proposed amendment, in cases of suicide operations, aerial attacks, and confrontation with armed criminals during ambush and anti-ambush operations, there is no need to adhere to the aforementioned hierarchy.

Upon examining the first three articles of the above law, it is evident that the authorities and individuals under its jurisdiction have been granted extensive powers and circumstances for their use; while it was expected that the legislature would move towards reducing the instances of permissible use of weapons in order to protect the lives of people and ensure the safety of society. Unfortunately, the proposed amendment has gone against this direction and its approval will only increase the powers of armed individuals to use weapons in any situation.

It can be said that the increase in deaths and injuries of citizens due to the weapons in the hands of officials and armed individuals will be witnessed in numerous cases, which will cause significant damage to security. It is hoped that the representatives of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, taking into account its dire consequences, will provide the means to change the law in a way that the use of weapons remains unpunished.